Scott Air Force Base and National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 (Authority decision, January 14, 1983)

Scott Air Force Base professionals retained in unit (FLRA 5-CU-32)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
5-CU-32
Decided
January 14, 1983
Outcome
Other
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1983, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1983
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority directly decided a unit-clarification petition. This unit determination is excluded from the 60-day judicial-review provision by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).

Plain-English summary

Scott Air Force Base sought to remove a safety specialist and two aeronautical information specialists from NAGE Local R7-23’s bargaining unit as management officials. The Authority found their work implemented rather than shaped Air Force policy, so all three remained in the unit. The parties also stipulated to the treatment of other positions, which the Authority accepted as amendments to the petition. It decided the original petition directly, with no regional director ruling to affirm or reverse.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Unit clarification under 5 U.S.C. § 7111(b)(2).
  • Outcome: Three disputed specialists included in the unit.
  • Key point: Implementing agency policy did not make these specialists management officials.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p26 ]

11:0026(14)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA No. 14

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
Activity/Petitioner

and

LOCAL R7-23, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Labor Organization

Case No. 5-CU-32

DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT

Upon a petition duly filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority under section 7111(b)(2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the Authority. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority finds: Local R7-23, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) is the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of all nonsupervisory Air Force General Schedule employees assigned to Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Essentially, the Activity's petition herein seeks to exclude from the unit three incumbents in two job classifications based on the allegation that they are management officials. /1/

The Activity contends that Howard P. Trimpe, Safety Specialist, GS-018-13, PD0100440; John J. Moreiko, Aeronautical Information Specialist, GS-1361-13, PD0200260; and Charles L. Mase, Aeronautical Information Specialist, GS-1361-13, PD0200260, are management officials.
/2/ In the lead case of Department of the Navy, Automatic Data Processing Selection Office, 7 FLRA No. 24 (1981), the Authority interpreted the statutory definition of "management official" to include those individuals who: (1) create, establish or prescribe general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency. Applying these criteria to the instant case, the Authority finds that the incumbents in the job classifications listed above are professionals whose actions assist in implementing, as opposed to shaping, the Activity's policies. Thus, the record is clear that these incumbents currently do not exercise duties and responsibilities which require or authorize them to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the Activity within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute as interpreted by the Authority. Accordingly, the Authority finds that the incumbents listed above are not management officials and therefore should not be excluded from the bargaining unit.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the unit sought to be clarified herein be, and it hereby is, clarified by including in said unit Howard P. Trimpe, Safety Specialist, GS-018-13, PD0100440; John J. Moreiko, Aeronautical Information Specialist, GS-1361-13, PD0200260; and Charles L. Mase, Aeronautical Information Specialist, GS-1361-13, PD0200260. Issued, Washington, D.C., January 14, 1983 Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman Henry B. Frazier III, Member Leon B. Applewhaite, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ At the hearing, the parties entered into the following stipulations which are deemed to be motions to amend the petition and are hereby granted: (a) Kenneth Wilson, Management Analyst, GS-343-13, PD0231820; Howard C. Warner, Computer Systems Analyst, GS-334-13, PD0273870; and Dale Sauer, Computer Specialist, GS-334-13, PD0294110 are management officials and should be excluded from the bargaining unit; and (b) James L. Boyd, Aeronautical Information Specialist, GS-1361-13, PD0100260, is not a management official and should be included in the unit.

/2/ Section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute defines a "management official" as:

. . . an individual employed by an agency in a position the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency . . . .

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace